From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751595Ab2FRLza (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 18 Jun 2012 07:55:30 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48687 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751029Ab2FRLz1 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 18 Jun 2012 07:55:27 -0400
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:54:40 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
Cc: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
        lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>, Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        Krishna Kumar <krkumar2@in.ibm.com>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
        Wang Sheng-Hui <shhuiw@gmail.com>,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        avi@redhat.com, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] virtio-spec: flexible configuration layout
Message-ID: <20120618115440.GA25042@redhat.com>
References: <1320150813.3847.24.camel@lappy>
 <20111101124223.GA14060@redhat.com>
 <8739e7uy87.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
 <20111102233110.GA20289@redhat.com>
 <20111108214021.GA4538@redhat.com>
 <1320828366.31056.16.camel@lappy>
 <20111109101318.GB20612@redhat.com>
 <alpine.LFD.2.02.1111091421570.4936@tux.localdomain>
 <1320841683.31056.41.camel@lappy>
 <alpine.LFD.2.02.1111091434230.4936@tux.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1111091434230.4936@tux.localdomain>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 02:36:43PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >They don't exist in kernel code either, for same reason as above.
> >
> >Nothing will break if we remove it since no one really used it, we were
> >probably the first and only implementation of the spec which considered
> >them :)
> 
> As long as we are able to run older versions of the KVM tool with
> newer kernels and vice versa, I see no reason why we can't drop
> 64-bit features from the KVM tool.
> 
> 			Pekka

So what happened? Did you guys do this?  Need to know what to do to make
progress.  IIUC Rusty removed the new fields in 0.9.3.
Does your tool still use them? Did any version of the tool released by
distros do so?

-- 
MST